Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 97 (PNJ)

Davinder Kumar Alias Ninder v. State of Punjab

2014-01-13

S.P.BANGARH

body2014
S.P. Bangarh, J. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.10.2005, at about 9 PM, Narinder Kumar (complainant) along with his friend Rashpal Singh alias Soni, was going to purchase sweets from the shop of Mohan Lal. When they reached near the shop of Daljit Singh, Member Panchayat, the petitioner, herein, armed with a naked sword, was found standing there, who gave two blows, thereof, on the left cheek and on the left side of upper lip of the complainant. When an alarm was raised by the complainant, the petitioner ran away along with the sword. Rashpal Singh, friend of the complaint, took him to the hospital, where statement of the complainant was recorded and FIR No. 146 dated 14.10.2005 under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar. In the medico-legal report, two injuries were found with sharp edged weapon on the person of the complainant, out of which, injury No. 1, on the cheek, was declared simple, and injury No. 2 was referred for dental opinion and probable duration of the injuries and the medico-legal report was less than six hours. After the opinion of the doctor, offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, was added. The petitioner was arrested on 8.11.2005. 2. After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Adampur, instituted the police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, before the trial Magistrate to the effect that it appears that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code. 3. On presentation of the police report, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, were furnished to the petitioner and the charge under Sections 326 and 324, Indian Penal Code, was framed against the petitioner, whereto, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, the prosecution evidence was summoned. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined Narinder Kumar (complainant) as PW-1, Rashpal Singh, eye witness, as PW-2 and Dr. Preetinder Singh as PW-3, and closed the evidence, later. 5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined in terms of Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. He was granted an opportunity to lead defence evidence, but, he closed the same without examining any witness. 6. 5. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined in terms of Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. He was granted an opportunity to lead defence evidence, but, he closed the same without examining any witness. 6. After hearing both the sides, the trial Magistrate vide judgment of conviction dated 20.9.2010, convicted the petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code, and vide order of sentence dated 20.9.2010, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of ` 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for commission of offence under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of ` 3,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months, for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. 7. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence (supra), the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2010 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, that was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.9.2012. 8. Aggrieved against the judgments (supra), the petitioner, who was accused before the trial Magistrate and the appellant before the Additional Sessions Judge, has filed the present criminal revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for setting aside the judgments of both the courts below and for acquitting him of the charge framed against him. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, did not assail the impugned conviction that has been upheld by the court below. 10. The court is also of the considered view that the impugned judgments of both the courts below are based on cogent, corroborating and reliable evidence. There is unanimous evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that the petitioner gave two blows on the cheek and upper lip of the complainant and caused two injuries, out of which, one was declared grievous in nature. There is, thus, no reason to interfere in the impugned conviction and it must be held that the petitioner is guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code. 11. There is, thus, no reason to interfere in the impugned conviction and it must be held that the petitioner is guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner only prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. 12. The petitioner has already undergone imprisonment for a period of 1 year 4 months and 28 days, as on 10.11.2013. The trial Magistrate imposed sentence of two years upon the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. This sentence was upheld by the appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 19.9.2012. There is no reason to interfere in the order of sentence that has been passed by both the courts below, as the petitioner is guilty of commission of heinous offence. He gave two blows of sword on the mouth of the complainant and that disfigured his face. Cutting of upper lip also tantamounts to disfigurement of the face of the complainant. In these circumstances, no leniency can be shown to the petitioner. 13. Indeed, the trial Magistrate already took a very lenient view so far as imposition of sentence upon the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, and both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. At the most, the petitioner shall remain in jail for a period of two years only. In these circumstances, he cannot be sentenced to the period already undergone by him, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 14. Resultantly, there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the order of sentence that has been passed by the trial Magistrate. Similarly, there is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned judgment passed by the court below, whereby, the impugned sentence has been upheld and affirmed. Resultantly, the revision, being devoid of merit, ought to be and is, hereby, dismissed.